Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

>> Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document >> "CodingStyle" >> like the following? >> >> "… >> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. >> …" >> >> >> Does this wording need any more adjustments? > > No. I have got an other impression.

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

>> Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document >> "CodingStyle" >> like the following? >> >> "… >> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists. >> …" >> >> >> Does this wording need any more adjustments? > > No. I have got an other impression.

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 13:49 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: Calling the label "unlock" instead of "out" is arguable a little better, Thanks that you can follow a renaming for this direction in principle. but nothing I would call a major improvement either. This was not my intention for such an use

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 13:49 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: Calling the label "unlock" instead of "out" is arguable a little better, Thanks that you can follow a renaming for this direction in principle. but nothing I would call a major improvement either. This was not my intention for such an use

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:20:54PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. > > Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document > "CodingStyle" > like the following? > > "… > Choose label names which say

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:20:54PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. > > Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document > "CodingStyle" > like the following? > > "… > Choose label names which say

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> Calling the label "unlock" instead of "out" is arguable a little better, Thanks that you can follow a renaming for this direction in principle. > but nothing I would call a major improvement either. This was not my intention for such an use case. I am proposing some small software updates

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> Calling the label "unlock" instead of "out" is arguable a little better, Thanks that you can follow a renaming for this direction in principle. > but nothing I would call a major improvement either. This was not my intention for such an use case. I am proposing some small software updates

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 13:07 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the labels exists. I have got an other impression. So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as far as I can see. Short identifiers might look more convenient in

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 13:07 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the labels exists. I have got an other impression. So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as far as I can see. Short identifiers might look more convenient in

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the labels > exists. I have got an other impression. > So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as far as I can see. Short identifiers might look more convenient in some cases because they are quicker to type.

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the labels > exists. I have got an other impression. > So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as far as I can see. Short identifiers might look more convenient in some cases because they are quicker to type.

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 12:20 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels, I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution. if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. Do other

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

Am 23.09.2016 um 12:20 schrieb SF Markus Elfring: Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels, I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution. if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. Do other

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump > labels, I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution. > if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the

Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

> Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump > labels, I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution. > if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference. Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the

Re: [PATCH 00/14] GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

First of all please stop sending your patches as a reply to an earlier and completely unrelated series. Second please prefix all TTM related patches with "drm/ttm:". Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels, if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart"

Re: [PATCH 00/14] GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

First of all please stop sending your patches as a reply to an earlier and completely unrelated series. Second please prefix all TTM related patches with "drm/ttm:". Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels, if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart"

[PATCH 00/14] GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:00:01 +0200 Several update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (14): Use kmalloc_array() in two functions Rename a jump label in ttm_alloc_new_pages() Rename jump

[PATCH 00/14] GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations

From: Markus Elfring Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:00:01 +0200 Several update suggestions were taken into account from static source code analysis. Markus Elfring (14): Use kmalloc_array() in two functions Rename a jump label in ttm_alloc_new_pages() Rename jump labels in ttm_page_pool_free()